Effects of two Postprocessing Methods onto Surface Dimension of in-Office Fabricated Stereolithographic Implant Surgical Guides.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of two postprocessing methods in terms of the overall, intaglio, and cameo surface dimensions of in-office stereolithographic fabricated implant surgical guides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty identical implant surgical guides were fabricated using a stereolithographic printer. Ten guides were postprocessed using an automated method. The other ten guides were postprocessed using a series of hand washing in combination with ultrasonics. Each guide was then scanned using cone-beam computed tomography to produce a set of digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files which were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. The STL file was then superimposed onto the original STL design file using the best fit alignment. The average positive and negative surface discrepancy differences in terms of means and variances were analyzed using t-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For the alternative group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 77.38 ± 10.68 µm and -67.74 ± 6.55 µm; 78.83 ± 8.65 µm and -68.16 ± 5.26 µm; and 70.5 ± 8.48 µm -64.84 ± 5.55 µm, respectively. For the automated group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 51.88 ± 4.38 µm and -170.7 ± 11.49 µm; 64.3 ± 4.44 µm and -89.45 ± 6.25 µm; and 83.59 ± 4.81 µm and -144.26 ± 13.19 µm, respectively. There was a statistical difference between the means of the two methods for the overall, intaglio, and cameo positive and negative discrepancies (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For a single implant tooth-supported implant guide, using hand washing with ultrasonics appeared to be consistently better than the automated method. The manual method presented with more positive discrepancies, while the automated method presented with more negative discrepancies.

Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting.

PURPOSE: To measure overall intaglio dimensional and tube deviations of implant guides printed at 50 and 100 µm layer thickness at 0°, 45°, and 90° angulation using a stereolithographic (SLA) printer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A surgical implant guide design from a subject missing a maxillary right central incisor, used as the original standard tessellation language (STL) were stereolithographically fabricated at each thickness and angulation, 50 and 100 µm layer thickness at 0°, 45°, and 90° angulation (n = 10 each group). The guide was then scanned using cone beam computed tomography. The digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) scanned files were then converted to an STL format. The overall dimensional deviations of the intaglio surface and the positioning of the implant guide tube were then superimposed onto the original designed STL file using best-fitting alignment. A t-test and an F-test as well as ANOVA followed by a post hoc t-test were used to determine statistical significant differences (α = 0.05) for the intaglio surface and guide tube deviation, respectively. RESULTS: The overall intaglio surface discrepancies (µm) printed at 0°, 45°, and 90° were 55.07 ± 1.36, 52.39 ± 2.09, and 61.02 ± 15.96 for 50 µm layer; and 98.38 ± 10.55, 84.47 ± 10.61, and 90.26 ± 5 for 100 µm layer with statistically significant differences for both t-test and F-test, p < 0.001. The maximal guide tube linear deviations (µm) printed at 0°, 45°, and 90° were 10.78 ± 3.84, 8.16 ± 3.68, and 12.57 ± 5.39 for 50 µm layer (ANOVA, p = 0.096); and 10.95 ± 5.23, 16.79 ± 4.97, and 22.63 ± 2.81 for 100 µm layer (ANOVA, p < 0.001). The maximal guide tube angular deviations (°) printed at 0°, 45°, and 90° were 1.29 ± 0.30, 0.64 ± 0.13, and 0.56 ± 0.21 for 50 µm layer (ANOVA, p < 0.001); and 1.57 ± 0.29, 0.86 ± 0.14, and 1.02 ± 0.31 for 100 µm layer (ANOVA, p = 0.034). There was a statistical difference in the deviations between 50 and 100 µm layer printing in all printed angulations except at 0° (t-test, p = 0.05, p = 0.03, and p = 0.001 for 0°, 45°, and 90°) and linear deviations (t-test, p < 0.001, p = 0.009, and p = 0.001 for 0°, 45°, and 90°). CONCLUSION: Printing at 50 µm layer reduces dimensional intaglio deviations in general and reduces tube angular deviations with different angulations of printing. However, the deviations were only ∼60 to 100 µm for the intaglio dimension deviations; and ∼0.04 to 0.26 mm and ∼0.25° to ∼2° for tube deviations.

Using Er:YAG laser to remove lithium disilicate crowns from zirconia implant abutments: An in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: When implants are restored with cement-retained restorations, prosthetic retrievability can be difficult and often requires sectioning using rotary instruments. Sometimes repeated removals of a cement-retained implant crown are needed such as for treatment of peri-implantitis or immediate implant provisionalization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser as a non-invasive treatment modality to remove lithium disilicate crowns from zirconia implant abutments following long-term cementation, repetitive debonding and re-cementation, and short-term retrieval. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty identical lithium disilicate crowns were cemented onto zirconia prefabricated abutments using composite resin cement. Ten cemented crowns were removed at 48 hours after cementation as a short-term group (ST), while another 10 were removed 6 months after cementation as a long-term group (LT). To mimicking repetitive recementation and retrieval, the LT crowns were then recemented and removed after 48 hours as a long-term recemention (LTR) group. The LTR crowns were then again recemented and removed after 48 hours as a long-term repeated recemention (LTRR) group. Er:YAG laser was used to facilitate the retrieval of these crowns. recorded and analyzed using ANOVA and t-test. The surfaces of the crown and the abutment were further examined using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Temperature changes of the abutment and crown upto 10 minutes were also measured and statistically analyzed (paired t-test). RESULTS: The average times of crown removal from zirconia abutments were 4 minutes (min) and 42 second (sec) in LT to 3 min 24 sec in LTR, and 3 min 12 sec in LTRR and ST groups. LTR took the longest time to remove, statistically (ANOVA and t-test, p < .001). No statistical differences were observed among the removal times of LTR, LTRR, and ST groups (t-test, p = .246, .246 and 1). SEM examination of the material surface showed no visual surface damaging from treatment with Er:YAG laser. The temperatures during irradiation ranged from 18.4°C to 20°C and 22.2°C to 24.5°C (Paired t-test, p < .0001) for the abutment and the crown during irradiation from 1 min to 10 mins. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term cementation can increase time in lithium disilicate crown removal from zirconia abutment using Er:YAG. Er:YAG laser is a non-invasive tool to remove cement-retained implant prostheses and should be considered as a viable alternative to rotary instruments.

In Vitro Examination of the Use of Er:YAG Laser to Retrieve Lithium Disilicate Crowns from Titanium Implant Abutments.

PURPOSE: Removal of cement-retained implant crowns can be difficult and often requires sectioning of the prosthesis by rotary instruments. This study aimed to measure how much time is required in crown removal and the temperature changes when erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser was used to retrieve lithium disilicate crowns from titanium implant abutments luted with composite resin (CR) cement and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty identical lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for prefabricated titanium abutments. CR and RMGI cements were used to lute the crowns, 20 specimens for each cement. Specimens were kept in 100% humidity for 48 hours. Er:YAG laser was then used to facilitate the crown retrieval. The retrieval time was recorded. The temperature changes at the abutment level for each type of cement were recorded during irradiation of 10 specimens for each type of cement from 1 to 10 minutes. Data were analyzed using t-test (ɑ = 0.01) and paired t-test (ɑ = 0.05). The surfaces of the crown and the abutment were further examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: The average times of crown removal from titanium abutments were 196.5 seconds for CR and 97.5 seconds for RMGI groups with statistical significance (p < 0.001). The temperatures measured from 1 to 10 minutes of irradiation ranged from 18° to 20.8° for CR and 18° to 23° for RMGI at the abutment surface, and 22.1° to 24.6° for CR and 22° to 24.8° for RMGI at the crown surface. No statistical differences were observed between temperature changes at the abutment or the crown for each cement (p = 0.63); however, there was a statistically significant difference between the temperatures at the abutment and crown for both cements (p < 0.001). SEM examination showed no visible damage caused by treatment with Er:YAG laser. CONCLUSIONS: It is faster to remove lithium disilicate crowns from titanium implant abutments when luted with RMGI compared to CR cement. The temperature rise was higher in the crown compared to the abutment. The type of cement had no effects on temperature changes. Heat generated from Er:YAG irradiation does not appear to be high enough to have any adverse effect on implant osseointegration.